United States v. Michael Dill, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14917

Michael Dill was convicted of two counts of bank robbery and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
After release, Dill repeatedly violated supervised-release conditions (positive drug tests, missed counseling/tests, travel and monitoring violations).
First revocation: after warning that further violations could lead to 15 months, the court imposed 12 months imprisonment and 18 months supervised release; Dill did not appeal.
Seven months after completing that term, Dill accrued additional violations (positive tests, missed tests/counseling, traffic contacts, restitution lapses) and faced a second revocation hearing.
At the second hearing the district court signaled it was considering a sentence between 12 and 24 months, acknowledged the Chapter 7 guideline range of 8–14 months, but imposed 14 months imprisonment, explaining the prior revocation and public-safety concerns.
Dill appealed, arguing the judge had irrevocably decided on at least a 12-month term before hearing mitigation and considering applicable guidelines and statutory factors; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district judge predetermine[d] the length of reimprisonment (>=12 months) before the revocation hearing, closing his mind to mitigation, guidelines, and statutory factors	Dill: Judge announced at the start he would impose at least 12 months and thus refused to consider defenses, guidelines, §3583(e)(3) and §3553(a) factors	Judge/Govt: Judge reasonably prepared and expressed preliminary views but remained open, acknowledged guidelines and considered Dill’s history, violations, and danger to public	Affirmed. Judge’s early statements reflected preparation, not an irrevocable decision; record shows individualized consideration of guidelines, mitigation, and statutory factors, so 14-month term was reasonable

United States v. Smith, 770 F.3d 653 (7th Cir.) (preliminary sentencing statements do not necessarily show predetermination)
United States v. Tatum, 760 F.3d 696 (7th Cir.) (courts should avoid literal readings of spontaneous sentencing remarks)
United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir.) (sentencing judge must keep an open mind to evidence and arguments at hearing)
United States v. Pless, 982 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir.) (judge may enter hearing with a preliminary view without disabling later consideration)
Fleenor v. Farley, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (S.D. Ind.) (judge’s early statement of leaning toward a sentence reflected preparation, not irrevocable decision)
United States v. Keatings, 787 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir.) (consideration of prior revocations is proper when determining reimprisonment)
United States v. Phillips, 791 F.3d 698 (7th Cir.) (district court must justify revocation sentence under statutory factors and relevant policy statements)
United States v. Poff, 926 F.2d 588 (7th Cir.) (discussing limits on judicial misunderstanding of sentencing discretion)